I probably could have posted this in one of the other threads, but wasn't exactly sure where it really belonged, so I started this one.

I've been watching parts of the KU - Tech game. Yeah, it's still just as brutal to watch on video as it was live and in person.

I've specifically tried to break down the D on each play so far. Paid close attention to each position group as well as individual players.

I watched some guys who look over-matched. Some guys who put themselves out of position either by playing the wrong scheme, like zone versus man in the secondary, etc. or by trying to make a big play instead of the sound play. Some guys who are just a step slow. Some guys making bad reads. Some guys who are actually making good plays most of the time.

But what really sticks out to me are 2 things. Guys on D are thinking too much. They aren't simply reading and reacting. They're sitting back on their heels for a second thinking about what they're supposed to be doing on the play and that absolutely killed them a bunch of times. Like on the 1st Tech TD, both Miller and Taylor hesitated before they began to defend what they thought they were supposed to defend. Taylor locked in on the WR he was supposed to cover IF it was a pass play. He didn't read the play or look at anything other than that WR until it was too late. Miller read it but only after he'd hesitated and by that time he had no real chance to beat the blocker that was sent out to block Taylor but instead blocked Miller because Taylor was so out of it still in pass coverage. That's over coaching and inexperience IMO. Over coaching in that they're being given too much stuff to think about AND read at the same time, instead of simplifying things down because of their inexperience. Not over coaching in that the coaches are doing too good of job! LOL

The other thing was that the D as a whole played soft. Guys weren't attacking blockers or gaps, but rather sitting back waiting for the blocker to engage them. Sometimes that's the right thing to do, but most of the time it isn't. Also, I think the scheme which appears to be an attempted bend but don't break type scheme reinforces that soft play. It's designed to try and keep everything in front of you so guys are back pedaling a lot and waiting for things to come to them rather than attacking the ball carrier or the blocker.

2 relatively simple things I think contributed a lot to the piss poor play on D. I think we need a more aggressive D scheme and risk giving up some big plays. Hell, they're already giving up big plays, so it probably couldn't be any worse. I think they'd make a lot more plays a lot closer to the line of scrimmage and actually put some pressure on the other team's O's from time to time for them to make mistakes. I mean, I think this is exactly why both CMU and Ohio's O's looked like they were top 10 offenses against us. We had the talent to play a lot more aggressive against both those teams, but we played the bend but don't break scheme and it killed us.

Also, as I said, I think simplifying a lot of the D would help guys take advantage of the talents they do have. We don't have a bunch of All-Americans running around on D, but we also don't have a bunch of DII rejects either. We actually have some guys with a lot of talent on D. Probably 2 or 3 that'll get legit shots in the NFL even. The mental mistakes were numerous in the plays I've watched so far. That's inexperience and it happens everywhere, but we've got it at just about every position on D. I think they could cut down on these types of mistakes greatly just by simplifying some things.

So, there ya go. Play a simpler more aggressive, and a bit riskier D scheme and I think our D could actually look competent and maybe even decent from time to time.

The D did actually show some flashes of what they could be on a few possessions, but until they can master the simpler stuff the constant failure to consistently stop anyone I'm afraid is gonna tank their confidence and morale if it's not already tanked.

I think that may be the coaches biggest mistake this year, in not having a more basic D until the players could start to get more comfortable and not be out there thinking about what they're supposed to be doing all the time..That's made some athletic guys look slow and bad when they are neither slow nor bad players. They could have built up the complexity as they went along when the players proved on the field they were ready for it.

_________________________
"If I went West, I think I would go to Kansas." -Abraham Lincoln

I also forgot to ask if everyone can keep the fire Zenger, fire Bowen, fire the entire lot of them stuff off this thread? I think we've already got plenty of threads for that. I'd like this thread to be about the D specifically and anything about it anyone noted or has thoughts on besides just bashing the coaches and/or players if at all possible.

_________________________
"If I went West, I think I would go to Kansas." -Abraham Lincoln

Your conclusions boiled down. Coaches aren't seeing what the players can do only what they expect them to do. Change coaches from being unrealistic before the game, not apologetic after the game in post game comments (Beaty). It is getting old but very familiar.

Edit: As for Goober thinking I want 19-0 and would still be unhappy, I would look for my unhappy comments about the basketball program. There are none b/c they don't make me want to post crap.

Don't fire coaches mantra isn't a sure thing, but they should ditch the double safety blitz play as it results in a average runner (TT) becoming OJ down the middle.

Edited by KUCO_VOC (10/12/1709:42 AM)

_________________________
Kansas football will rise again (Coach Don Fambrough style)

So they are playing soft and not attacking. Yet, many "fire Bowen", arm chair D coordinators are complaining CB called a double safety blitz on a 4th and short. Amazing how many Monday morning QBs can coach better then our staff.

I certainly haven't given the type of analysis to it that you have, K-Man. But I still maintain the single biggest deficiency is talent and athleticism. An example, let's pick on Free State. We've spent a good portion of the year with Dineen, Loneker, and Torneden as starters. They may give 100% in practice, they may have "earned it" through their effort, but are they every down Big 12 players? To the best of my recollection, Dineen had one other D1 offer, to Rice; Torneden had no other D1 offers; and I'm guessing there is a reason Loneker started at Baker.

Good kids? No doubt.

Hard workers? No doubt.

Every down D1 football players that you want to build the back end of your defense around? Maybe not.

And even if they do survive play after play, what happens to the level of play every time an injury occurs? There's not enough quality, there's not enough depth. So in violation of your second post, the coaches need to do a better job of getting more high quality football players in here. And the quickest way to do that is win some games, and to do that we're going to have get very lucky, like get 5-6 turnovers(see Texas), or outcoach the other team.

So they are playing soft and not attacking. Yet, many "fire Bowen", arm chair D coordinators are complaining CB called a double safety blitz on a 4th and short. Amazing how many Monday morning QBs can coach better then our staff.

Since you seem to be pointing this to me, I DIDN'T say fire CB for the double safety blitz. DID say dump the play from the playbook. Reading Comp 101 would do you some good.

kman asks you to quit bashing the coach on his topic!

_________________________
Kansas football will rise again (Coach Don Fambrough style)

I certainly haven't given the type of analysis to it that you have, K-Man. But I still maintain the single biggest deficiency is talent and athleticism. An example, let's pick on Free State. We've spent a good portion of the year with Dineen, Loneker, and Torneden as starters. They may give 100% in practice, they may have "earned it" through their effort, but are they every down Big 12 players? To the best of my recollection, Dineen had one other D1 offer, to Rice; Torneden had no other D1 offers; and I'm guessing there is a reason Loneker started at Baker.

Good kids? No doubt.

Hard workers? No doubt.

Every down D1 football players that you want to build the back end of your defense around? Maybe not.

And even if they do survive play after play, what happens to the level of play every time an injury occurs? There's not enough quality, there's not enough depth. So in violation of your second post, the coaches need to do a better job of getting more high quality football players in here. And the quickest way to do that is win some games, and to do that we're going to have get very lucky, like get 5-6 turnovers(see Texas), or outcoach the other team.

Agree about the Free State kids. They would probably sit at other P5 programs.

_________________________
KU Coach Naismith invented the game so you get to play it.

I certainly haven't given the type of analysis to it that you have, K-Man. But I still maintain the single biggest deficiency is talent and athleticism. An example, let's pick on Free State. We've spent a good portion of the year with Dineen, Loneker, and Torneden as starters. They may give 100% in practice, they may have "earned it" through their effort, but are they every down Big 12 players? To the best of my recollection, Dineen had one other D1 offer, to Rice; Torneden had no other D1 offers; and I'm guessing there is a reason Loneker started at Baker.

Dineen is currently 2nd in the nation in solo tackles and 3rd in the nation in total tackles as well as tackles for loss. Again, that's in the nation. I don't think you can do that if you're not every play D-1 material, He does have his problems though, I agree. He struggles in pass coverage some and overruns what seems to be a lot of plays (have a feeling this may be exacerbated by guys making mistakes around him). Overall he's not great, but he's not terrible either IMHO He'd probably at least be on the 2 deep at most other schools and probably start at few IMO.

Torneden and Loneker both look a step slow most of the time. I actually think Loneker played better last year than he has so far this year. Last year Loneker showed he had very good football instincts at the LB spot. This year, he looks like he's lost all of those instincts most of the time. Torneden struggles mostly in coverage but also seems to be making some bad reads which leads to him taking himself out of plays by drifting out of position.

I agree, both would at best probably be backups on another Big 12 team at this point.

Originally Posted By: PbBut

And even if they do survive play after play, what happens to the level of play every time an injury occurs? There's not enough quality, there's not enough depth.

Agree, there's not enough depth at a few spots still. Those spots are getting exposed a lot in games too.

Also agree that the quality at a few spots isn't where it needs to be either, but I think some of that has to do with inexperience too. Some guys don't look good because they're young and inexperienced leading to mistakes and blown assignments as well as getting schooled some by more experienced guys they're going against. Experience can do that in any sport. See Mark Randall schooling Shaq back in the KU vs LSU bball game from years ago.

Originally Posted By: PbBut

So in violation of your second post, the coaches need to do a better job of getting more high quality football players in here. And the quickest way to do that is win some games, and to do that we're going to have get very lucky, like get 5-6 turnovers(see Texas), or outcoach the other team.

Nah, I didn't say I didn't want any criticisms of the coaches. I just didn't want this thread to devolve into a bunch of posts calling for the firing of the AD, HC, DC, or whatever like has already been voiced in a few other threads. I think those topics are already well covered elsewhere. I'm more interested in what people's thoughts and impressions are about what specifically is going wrong on D not broad generalizations or venting about the poor performances some more.

_________________________
"If I went West, I think I would go to Kansas." -Abraham Lincoln

Just didn't want the thread to morph into a bunch of broad generalizations about fire them all or whatever. There's already threads with plenty of that in them and deservedly so.

I'm interested in specifics about the D in this thread. Whether it be the coaching, the players, individual players, schemes, experience, bad matchups. or whatever you see as the problem or problems specifically.

_________________________
"If I went West, I think I would go to Kansas." -Abraham Lincoln